"Sun and Red Hat have both submitted new versions of their trusted operating systems for Common Criteria certification evaluation. While these systems are being evaluated against the same CC protection profiles and at the same evaluation assurance level, these systems differ in significant ways that affect how a customer might choose to use such systems."

I've spent quite some time going through this article, and I was surprised to find such a detailed comparison. I half-expected some sort of marketing-speak inundated write-up highlighting the "glorious advantages" of Solaris 10 over RHEL 5 in this regard.

I use RHEL and have been gradually getting more accustomed to SELinux since it was introduced in Fedora a few years ago. I particularly find the new SELinux troubleshooting tool useful in RHEL 5, as otherwise problems arising because of an improperly configured SELinux would just loom mysteriously.

This article makes me want to try (Open)Solaris, especially because of how integrated it claims Trusted Extensions are to the OS.

One thing that was mentioned that really caught my eye, even though it has nothing to do with security, is that Solaris uses a 3 year old version of GNOME! You could always use CDE but that's like using a 15 year old version of XFCE. I guess SUN doesn't plan on updating GNOME for Java Desktop until their next release of Solaris. If SUN continues to go this route they are ALWAYS going to have an older, staler graphical interface compared to competing Linux vendors. They don't have a chance on the desktop no matter which vendor is chosen for server side duties and without the desktop Solaris can never fully compete with Microsoft or Linux.

There is nothing stopping you from downloading OpenSolaris Express Community Edition or OpenSolaris Express Developer Edition; both B60 and 02/2007 have GNOME 2.16.1 with their respective distributions.

Don't let the name fool you, just because it says 'express', it isn't code for 'bug ridden shit hole' - all the submissions to OpenSolaris go through the same rigorous testing as their own development - its no more 'bleeding edge' to use OpenSolaris as it is to use Fedora - infact, my limited experience so far with B60 has shown that it is more reliable and stable than Linux.

Oh, and why won't they update GNOME? because their customers don't want it to be done - also, if you look through the changes, the massive changes they would have to make to Solaris 10 would be so large, it would be the worlds largest jumbo patch - there is a tonne of technology which the new GNOME desktop relies on which isn't provided with Solaris 10; HAL support for instance, which relies on changes further down.

If Sun makes a decision not to do something with their product, 9/10 there is normally a damn good reason, and *shock* *horror* they might have consulted with customers whether the justification for a massive disruption was worth it - customers obviously said no.

9/10 there is normally a damn good reason, and *shock* *horror* they might have consulted with customers

Customers never get consulted on these things. What few customers they might have using their Gnome desktop, at any rate. However, if they want people using Solaris desktops, in view of the competition, then they're going to have to do something about it.

It's purely for reasons based on the fact that they cannot keep up with every single release of Gnome, and the fact that Gnome depends on an awful lot of stuff that at the moment is pretty Linux specific. HAL and GStreamer are such components, and it's going to get ever worse for Sun. They should pick a desktop that has retained its sanity and is much more environment agnostic.

Customers never get consulted on these things. What few customers they might have using their Gnome desktop, at any rate. However, if they want people using Solaris desktops, in view of the competition, then they're going to have to do something about it.

Pardon? So you're saying to me that you work for Sun and know their decisions and who they speak to (and according to you, don't)?

It's purely for reasons based on the fact that they cannot keep up with every single release of Gnome, and the fact that Gnome depends on an awful lot of stuff that at the moment is pretty Linux specific. HAL and GStreamer are such components, and it's going to get ever worse for Sun. They should pick a desktop that has retained its sanity and is much more environment agnostic.

Pardon again? have you checked out SX:DE or SX:CE? both have HAL, gstreamer, cd ripping capabilities etc.

Again, stop spreading lies and half truths when you've done very little in the way of investigating what is on offer.

I'm going to have to pull you up on that one. Changes and development are driven by the demands of customers. It's very naive to suggest that Sun doesn't consult with customers, especially given the stakes of getting it wrong given the infrastructure that Solaris typically operates on.

I'm going to have to pull you up on that one. Changes and development are driven by the demands of customers. It's very naive to suggest that Sun doesn't consult with customers, especially given the stakes of getting it wrong given the infrastructure that Solaris typically operates on.

The problem is that the original poster assumes that because he wasn't rung about and treated as if he were the sole decider of the future direction of Solaris, apparently no one is consulted.

I think the original poster needs to realise one thing; OpenSolaris is an opensource project; if you don't like the direction of Solaris, then do something about it!

In the OpenSolaris community, there are those who are not happy with the choice of GNOME being the default desktop for OpenSolaris, so they've setup a project with the aim to bring KDE 4.0 to OpenSolaris, which will have full integration between OpenSolaris and the desktop environment.

// You're not naive, you just don't know what you're talking about at all if you think customers are consulted about technical decisions like this related to the software they're using. //

Have a read again. I never said all. That indeed would be naive. If you think that consumers have just swallowed what Sun throw at them and will continue to do so, then I would suggest to you the balance of common sense tilts against you.

Oh, sorry! I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
But even after re-re-reading your comment I still cannot imagine what you're comparing GNOME with if it's not KDE.
Because just saying "GNOME sucks!" without talking about alternatives is rather silly. Remember, we are talking about fully fledged DEs here.
With a big team of developers, corporate support, ...

Well I guess Sun wouldn't consult you since you are not a customer, and if you are, I would hate to be your Sun rep. And they listen to us just fine.

And what does having the latest version of Gnome have to do with Trusted Extensions? I suppose if we dissected RedHat Enterprise Linux, we would find equally "ancient" software as well. Considering the Common Criteria evaluation process can take up to a year it would not surprise me at all that what is bundled with either OS is not "up to date", and considering the very nature of how each OS is to be used, would you want bleeding edge and untested software as part of the OS just so you can have your toys?

"[...] would you want bleeding edge and untested software as part of the OS just so you can have your toys?"

This is mostly correct for the home users. But enterprise users (or their respective IT departments) should be more intelligent in regards of first planning what they really need, then installing it in a professional manner.

Well I guess Sun wouldn't consult you since you are not a customer, and if you are, I would hate to be your Sun rep. And they listen to us just fine.

Hmm, more correctly; he is probably a one man band; it would be unreasonable for Sun to talk to *every* customer, from the biggest customer with 50,000 licences down to someone like me who is merely running their free, fortnightly build of Solaris.

I wonder if the original poster gets pissed off because McDonalds head off doesn't ring him back about whether or not a new burger they've designed is a good product.

And what does having the latest version of Gnome have to do with Trusted Extensions? I suppose if we dissected RedHat Enterprise Linux, we would find equally "ancient" software as well. Considering the Common Criteria evaluation process can take up to a year it would not surprise me at all that what is bundled with either OS is not "up to date", and considering the very nature of how each OS is to be used, would you want bleeding edge and untested software as part of the OS just so you can have your toys?

His conclusion is because it doesn't have the latest, bleeding edge desktop, it is obviously flawed - if one were running a server, one wouldn't care about whether or not it has the latest bleeding edge software - the bigger concern would be things like uptime and security - if you want to have 'more modern' software, there is a pretty good archive over at blastwave.org

If he was going to use the server and needed high uptime, he would purchase a Sun support contract, and if were important enough, he would be able to lodge requests directly to Sun for a required feature/bug fix specific to a problem he has encountered.

I've pointed out that he can use SX:CE or SXDE; but the original poster doesn't want a solution, heck, I doubt he even wants to use Solaris - its a more of an attempt by someone to gain attention for the sake of attention.

Hmm, more correctly; he is probably a one man band; it would be unreasonable for Sun to talk to *every* customer

You're extremely tetchy about this for some unapparent reason. That is not what I said at all. I said that customers are never consulted over these things at all - you simply get what software is put down to you.

I wonder if the original poster gets pissed off because McDonalds head off doesn't ring him back about whether or not a new burger they've designed

Oh dear. You really don't know what you're talking about.

His conclusion is because it doesn't have the latest, bleeding edge desktop, it is obviously flawed

No. It's just they're running stuff that is three years out of date when the competition is moving further forwards.

if one were running a server

The discussion wasn't about servers. Read the comments.

he would purchase a Sun support contract, and if were important enough, he would be able to lodge requests directly to Sun for a required feature/bug fix specific to a problem he has encountered.

Yer. I, nor any other customer, would get consulted over such matters. The software I get is what I'm given, unless there's enough people who have a disaster. That was the one and only point.

I've pointed out that he can use SX:CE or SXDE; but the original poster doesn't want a solution

That wasn't what I was talking about. What makes you think I want a solution?

>> Hmm, more correctly; he is probably a one man band; it would be
>> unreasonable for Sun to talk to *every* customer

> You're extremely tetchy about this for some unapparent reason. That
> is not what I said at all. I said that customers are never consulted over
> these things at all - you simply get what software is put down to you.

I am an engineer for Sun and you are wrong. Both in general and specially in the case of this article.

Voice of the Customer reports are everywhere and taken very seriously. They drive requirements (and, therefore, features) in all of our products. The directive to do so comes from our CEO and if you read his blog you will soon see he spends much of his time collecting customer feedback. That feedback is not just communicated to us through his blog either.

Jonathans' blog
bogs.sun.com/jonathan

Listening to the customer and solving their problems is why our product portfolio is stronger than it has been in years. They see that, and are buying more of our products, which is why we are profitable again.

In the particular case of this article, customer requirements and feedback from them (in the form of EAL certification) are the only reason the features exist in the first place.

Neither Sun nor anyone else consults anyone over these decisions. That was the point. You get what's put down to you.

And what does having the latest version of Gnome have to do with Trusted Extensions?

Have a look at what I replied to.

Considering the Common Criteria evaluation process can take up to a year it would not surprise me at all that what is bundled with either OS is not "up to date", and considering the very nature of how each OS is to be used, would you want bleeding edge

Actually, you are quite wrong in your assertion. For the sorts of customers which purchase CC-certified OS environments (Govt orgs and companies which mandate highly secure computing), the vendors *do* go and find out what the customers want.

In great detail.

Then it's set in stone, because that is what that sort of customers want - a dependable, CC-certified environment. It's not easy to get CC certification, and nor should it be.

Just because somebody wants to talk about the desktop environment doesn't mean you can ignore or dismiss the very valid requirements which go into providing a Trusted environment.

Just for the record, you *know* that Sun is one of the biggest Corporate gnome backers in existance, right?

They footed the bill for fulltime usability experts to write the original gnome 2.0 HIG (Human Interface Guidelines).

Also, Sun has the Trusted version of Gnome that supports their new Trusted Extensions with window manager level labelling. That is very impressive. The work to port those changes over to another DE (such as KDE) would basicly be a fork.

It doesn't make much sense for Sun to use anything other than gnome seeing as how that is the DE most of their engineers work on.

If you consider reality, this is not true anymore. Still I agree if you say Solaris is installed mainly on servers, this is true. It is true as well that Solaris is aimed at the professional customers, not at the home users. But Solaris is already on the desktop. Maybe it does not have an impressive usage share, but it has the capabilities to serve as a workstation (desktop) OS.

Funny that considering Sun themselves run Solaris and Gnome 2.whatever on the desktop just now, nearly all users in Sun, with the exception of some of the mobile Sales force run Solaris/Gnome every day as the primary desktop and shock horror actually get the work done ... it runs very nicely thanks very much .. ok it may not be the most up2date version of the DE on offer but it works and works well .. Sun seem to be getting along ok, dont ya think ?

There is nothing stopping you from downloading OpenSolaris Express Community Edition or OpenSolaris Express Developer Edition; both B60 and 02/2007 have GNOME 2.16.1 with their respective distributions.

That's not exactly something anyone with any amount of IT knowhow is going to suggest using in a production environment.

its no more 'bleeding edge' to use OpenSolaris as it is to use Fedora - infact, my limited experience so far with B60 has shown that it is more reliable and stable than Linux.

Fedora isn't going to be used in a production environment anytime soon either.

Oh, and why won't they update GNOME? because their customers don't want it to be done - also, if you look through the changes, the massive changes they would have to make to Solaris 10 would be so large, it would be the worlds largest jumbo patch - there is a tonne of technology which the new GNOME desktop relies on which isn't provided with Solaris 10; HAL support for instance, which relies on changes further down.

Really? Customer's don't want updates and new features? You know this for a fact? As far as HAL and other Linux specific technologies, that matters little to customers. As we in the Linux camp have heard for years, customer's don't care what reasons you give them they don't want excuses they want solutions.

If Sun makes a decision not to do something with their product, 9/10 there is normally a damn good reason, and *shock* *horror* they might have consulted with customers whether the justification for a massive disruption was worth it - customers obviously said no.

Solaris has very little in the way of desktop share anywhere. My point, which seems to have been missed, is that in today's world if you want the server you're going to have to offer an adequate desktop solution also. Windows has both, with good marketshare in both areas. Apple has entered the server market recently and Linux has been working on the Desktop for years. SUN doesn't seem to be doing much with their pitiful offering.

I don't know how many servers you manage, but I manage a bunch of them just fine without a GUI. Try pulling KDE over a serial link sometime and tell me how that works out for you. When you start playing with real servers (and tha tincludes x86 machines like HP's DL and BL series), you have the ability to manage the machine through an iLO port (something similar to Sun's LOM port).

And if you were actually on topic (which you're not) one of the things discussed in the article is how Sun provides MLS graphical desktops, which RedHat Enterprise Linux doesn't.

Your comment about a server OS having to have a graphical desktop in order to be successful is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here! Thanks for the laugh! Send that to IBM and HP, I'm sure their engineers for AIX and HP-UX will get a nice chuckle out of that statement too.

LOL! I am sure that is why both IBM and HP seem to be making more money on linux then on AIX and HP-UX.

And yes Ben Rockwood of Joyent Systems uses Open Solaris for production. But I noticed that you put up one company name that most people has never heard of.

I work for the feds and if I suggested Open Solaris on the production network (Or Fedora for that matter) I would loose my danm job. LOL!

A lot of people don't like things beingg updated cause they for sure want things to be stable. But shoot every now and then update crap!

I use SSH 99 percent of the time to manage my SUSE servers, but sometimes I like being able to start the GUI from the command line and then using VLC to connect from a web browser and getting an updated and easy to use desktop. Somethings are just more easy to do with a GUI.

In reality Solaris is old and played out. They are getting desperate and selling Linux on one hand and hiring Linux people like Ian Murdock on the other.

They might as well become a Linux company. Put all the solaris tools software etc on the Linux kernel. Why not. LOL!

Yeah, I work for the Government as well, except some of us get to work with the bleeding edge stuff.

And what exactly is "old and played out" about Solaris? I can't wait to hear this considering the last line of your comment "Put all the solaris tools software etc on the Linux kernel." If Solaris is "played out", then why would you want those tools?

Yeah I know, some of us do. I work for the US federal government as a consultant and I get to play with bleeding edge stuff all the time, just NOT on production networks. We have a 2000 user dev net at the agency I work for just for the development and testing of software, security tools, OS's etc.

And if you work for the US federal government you would know that your network security grade is tied to IT funding. So if you get a low grade (By putting insecure, bleeding edge stuff on the production net) you will loose funding. Which is why you wont see that in an agency that gets a C or above on their IG grade.

Anyway, no one uses SLOW laris anymore. Only thing I see people in most of the federal agencies I work with use Solaris for is high end web serving. While I see agencies using Linux all over the place. On phone systems, on IDS servers, on Web Servers, print servers, routers etc.

Solaris is not that flexable and it doesn't support half the hardware that linux does. While you can put Linux all over the place. You have limited use for Solaris. And some of the things that Solaris used to be used a lot for for instance in the main agency I work for has been displaced by Linux and Windows, like DHCP, DNS, FTP .

Lets face it, in most companies you have Windows, then Linux and then a sprinkle of everything else.

Remember there was a story that Google was looking at Open Solaris. Notice you have not heard much more about that. because Solaris has some powerfull tools etc. Like Zones, containers etc but that is about it. Linux is coming along well, it's more flexable, more easy to use, more popular and well known and just plain cool.

Oh and if you say Solaris is easy to use compared to Linux, please tell me how do you change the IP, DNS and HOST name on a solaris server without rebooting and at the same time being sure you got it changed in all the places you need to change it? You can use the sys-unconfig command. But this requires a reboot and takes you step by step through putting all the info back in. During which time your server is off line.

If you can give me a good answer to that question I will leave Solaris alone.

Your comment about a server OS having to have a graphical desktop in order to be successful is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here! Thanks for the laugh! Send that to IBM and HP, I'm sure their engineers for AIX and HP-UX will get a nice chuckle out of that statement too.

And what is so pitiful about Solaris?

I think you're missing the real point of the original poster here. The point, which is rather valid, is that in order to become successful in terms of number of users (specifically technology enthusiasts like myself) to test Solaris instead of Linux, they have to work harder to provide a more up-to-date graphical environment. I think there is a closer correlation between the success on the desktop (with regular users and developers like myself) and the server (with corporations and organizations as the main users) than many people would like to think.

By attracting the technology enthusiasts and early adopters, you pave the way for the really important customers from a corporate point of view. By the way, I think Sun is getting this already. Otherwise they wouldn't spend so much effort on making OpenSolaris Express and hiring Ian Murdock. I think it will not be long until I try OpenSolaris out myself.

If you think people posting are clueless because you don't agree with them, try applying a nicer attitude towards them and help them by explaining things the way you see it instead of accusing them of being off-topic and thanking them for good laughs. It's not friendly.

Stop, just stop right there, and answer this rather simple question (which mind you, a lot of osnews.com users don't seem to be bothering to answer, either). What on earth makes you think that Sun would prioritize the usability (your definition of usability -- higher versioning -- is wrong, but we'll use it anyway) of the desktop over the stability and consistency of the environment as a whole? Not to burst your bubble, but Sun isn't out to make Solaris the greatest desktop environment. They're out there to produce an operating system that is both stable, consistent, and can be continually improved because of the existence of those stable, consistent interfaces. I couldn't care less that Solaris 10 ships with a 3 year old version of Gnome. What I do care about (not listed in order of importance) is:

(2) binary compatibility. I can take a binary that I compiled on Solaris 2.5.1 and run it on Solaris Express. If I can't, its a bug.

(3) observability tools. With tools like DTrace, a real kernel debugger, and so fourth, the de-mystification of what my systems are doing is possible.

(4) storage. Solaris (like any other half-decent operating system) has consistent naming, excellent support for fibre-channel devices (that's shown in the quality of the tools, like luxadm), the ability to setup root mirroring with SVM in your sleep, IO multipathing, and of course, ZFS.

Your comment about a server OS having to have a graphical desktop in order to be successful is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here! Thanks for the laugh! Send that to IBM and HP, I'm sure their engineers for AIX and HP-UX will get a nice chuckle out of that statement too.

Your reading comprehension skills are very poor. I never said that a server should have a GUI. NEVER. In fact I hate when a server has a GUI. All mine are command line only. What I'm saying is that the desktop is becoming more important everyday and the big players in the desktop market are also in the server market slowly chipping away at big iron share. If the big iron wants to keep customers they are going to have to offer integrated desktop solutions to go along with their server offerings.

What I'm saying isn't outrageous at all. It's common sense. Microsoft can sell you an end to end solution because they own the desktop market and do very well in the server market. Novell, Apple, and soon Redhat will also offer you an end to end solution. SUN doens't have en end to end solution and they are going to have a hard time unless they start focusing on it. Personally I don't think OpenSolaris is the answer. That's not an integrated solution.

When you start playing with real servers (and tha tincludes x86 machines like HP's DL and BL series), you have the ability to manage the machine through an iLO port (something similar to Sun's LOM port).

HaHaHa, give me a break, ILO has to be the worst pile of steaming crap i have ever had the displeasure to use when remotley managing a server, with the issues i have had with it i would have been as well shouting my commands at the box ... "Computer .. reboot" .. No offence man, but ILO and that godforsaken web interface should not be mentioned in the same breath as LOM and the Sparc Serial console, system controllers, etc .. they actually work 99% of the time ... In my exp ILO works 50% of the time and im being generous with that number .... god i hate ILO .... not that it shows too much i hope, i was trying to remain objective

Fedora isn't going to be used in a production environment anytime soon either.

Well, you're wrong:

You're right. I didn't phrase my statement quite right. Fedora and other free distros are used for web servers and things like that but when a fortune 500 company like the one I work for wants to roll out new clients and/or servers Fedora isn't an option. OpenSolaris isn't an option either.

Let me restate some things because people are getting all bent out of shape because of things I said and did not say. Words are being put into my mouth and ideas into my head that I never started with.

First of all I apologize for this discussion monopolizing this thread because the article is actually a very interesting and informative comparison. I wasn't trying to set off a flamewar.

My point was about market share and what it is going to take to gain and retain server marketshare in the future. I didn't say servers needed a GUI or needed to be bleeding edge. What I did say is that more and more server marketshare is going to be tied to desktop marketshare. There are many reasons for this. People prefer an end to end solution and disregarding Microsoft no one else offered a viable end to end solution until relatively recently but now Apple, Novell, and Redhat do. This is the wave of the future, one that Microsoft was smart enough to have been riding for years.

Feel free to disagree with me but just don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem accepting someones opinion that this is not the case and desktop share is completely unrelated to server share but all this talk about graphical interfaces on a server and Fedora serving web pages is not relevant to what I was saying at all. It's all just a neat little trap, attempting to avoid the real issues that I mention, which is basically this...SUN does not have a viable desktop solution to offer corporations and therefor will lose server marketshare eventually as software vendors like Novell and Redhat offer end to end solutions that can replace current Solaris servers and Windows desktops, or any other number of configurations, with a unified solution.

And I still think your view is ridiculous. I can drive about 30 minutes down the road to a major ship builder (they make aircraft carriers) and they use AIX for workstations. I have no idea how much experience you have with AIX, but the last time I used 5L 5.2 it was equally "deficient" as Solaris when it comes to "desktop features". The applications they use drive what desktop they use, just as the apps drive it in most installations.

Your idea of a "unified solution" is equally ridiculous, when was the last time you speced out gear for an enterprise installation? I just recently put together two packages for a learning management system deployment and the last thing that came up is what GUI was going to be used for the dsesktop! It makes no difference what desktop you are using because an increasing number of applications are web based. The choice comes down to what can be supported by the enterprise based on skill set and existing hardware and software. In the vast majority of large scale installations, the client of choice is Windows.

Sun does have a desktop solution, a corporate desktop. It might not be what a home user or a Linux user thinks a desktop should be, but it's there. And before you bring up the tired argument of lack of hardware support, anyone who is going to buy Solaris (or AIX, HP-UX, Linux or Windows for that matter) is going to buy the hardware that supports the software. In other words if I am going to use Solaris for a desktop, then I am going to buy Sun workstations. That means all the features such as sound will work without any problems.

And I still think your view is ridiculous. I can drive about 30 minutes down the road to a major ship builder (they make aircraft carriers) and they use AIX for workstations. I have no idea how much experience you have with AIX, but the last time I used 5L 5.2 it was equally "deficient" as Solaris when it comes to "desktop features". The applications they use drive what desktop they use, just as the apps drive it in most installations.

You're view is especially ridiculous. I don't see people running and jumping to have AIX on the desktop. You're correct that people generally run an OS they need to run their applications but Linux is taking over UNIX marketshare and modern applications are for Linux now.

Your idea of a "unified solution" is equally ridiculous, when was the last time you speced out gear for an enterprise installation?

Different departments have different needs. What exactly does one have to use Solaris for over Linux though? There is very little that Solaris can do that Linux cannot. If clients are needed then why take a Solaris offer with a terrible client solution when you can have an excellent server and client solution with Linux.

Look. Solaris isn't going to be wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow because of this but their marketshare will slowly erode and they will not be able to compete with Microsoft or Novell or Redhat in many different areas because JDS is such a lame attempt at a desktop.

Sun does have a desktop solution, a corporate desktop. It might not be what a home user or a Linux user thinks a desktop should be, but it's there.

Sure they have a desktop, that competes with no one. People are using Windows, OSX, and even Linux in large installations on the client side. This doesn't happen with Solaris and won't unless they make it look like they actually care about the desktop, which to my knowledge they don't, and it is my opinion that it will hurt them.

I am not the one who (1) started a flame war about GUI's in a discussion about two operating systems and their differences in handling Multiple Level Security and (2) has yet to make a compelling argument about the future of any OS based on a desktop. Only Linux zealots seem to be hung up on this desktop nonsense, as I have stated ad nauseum Sun is not trying to capture the desktop market, and for that matter neither is RedHat (we use both at work). And while RedHat offers a desktop OS, I am sure they are not even contemplating going after large installations of Windows (we have over 4,000 desktops). When RedHat comes to talk to us, it is about servers (where they make a lot more money).

Just as I asked you to backup your previous comments (which you have failed to do), you make more statements based on your opinion about the future of Solaris based on its desktop. Do you have any meaningful data to backup this statement "Solaris isn't going to be wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow because of this but their marketshare will slowly erode and they will not be able to compete with Microsoft or Novell or Redhat in many different areas because JDS is such a lame attempt at a desktop." or are you just trolling as before?

I am not the one who (1) started a flame war about GUI's in a discussion about two operating systems and their differences in handling Multiple Level Security and (2) has yet to make a compelling argument about the future of any OS based on a desktop.

I didn't start this flamewar. I wasn't even trying to steer the discussion towards Solaris on the desktop. I tried to make that clear. The people who started the flamewar were people like you who try to put words in my mouth.

Only Linux zealots seem to be hung up on this desktop nonsense, as I have stated ad nauseum Sun is not trying to capture the desktop market, and for that matter neither is RedHat (we use both at work). And while RedHat offers a desktop OS, I am sure they are not even contemplating going after large installations of Windows (we have over 4,000 desktops). When RedHat comes to talk to us, it is about servers (where they make a lot more money).

Oh nevermind then. You obviously missed the point if you are still jabbering on about how SUN isn't trying to get on the desktop, I stated that they don't care about the desktop already, but they should. For some reason SUN fanatics are overly sensitive on this site and respond to every criticism in a defensive way.

Just as I asked you to backup your previous comments (which you have failed to do), you make more statements based on your opinion about the future of Solaris based on its desktop. Do you have any meaningful data to backup this statement "Solaris isn't going to be wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow because of this but their marketshare will slowly erode and they will not be able to compete with Microsoft or Novell or Redhat in many different areas because JDS is such a lame attempt at a desktop." or are you just trolling as before?

To be a troll you have to try to get people in an uproar. I didn't do that. If anyone is guilty of being a troll its you and others like you who freak out anytime anyone says anything bad about SUN or Solaris. I stated that my post was an opinion and I gave my reasoning but you were too busy getting your panties in a bunch about SUN being criticized to actually read my opinion on why the lack of a viable desktop will hurt SUN in the end. I never said it would kill them but it will hurt them.

I am not the one who (1) started a flame war about GUI's in a discussion about two operating systems and their differences in handling Multiple Level Security and (2) has yet to make a compelling argument about the future of any OS based on a desktop.

I didn't start this flamewar. I wasn't even trying to steer the discussion towards Solaris on the desktop. I tried to make that clear. The people who started the flamewar were people like you who try to put words in my mouth.

Only Linux zealots seem to be hung up on this desktop nonsense, as I have stated ad nauseum Sun is not trying to capture the desktop market, and for that matter neither is RedHat (we use both at work). And while RedHat offers a desktop OS, I am sure they are not even contemplating going after large installations of Windows (we have over 4,000 desktops). When RedHat comes to talk to us, it is about servers (where they make a lot more money).

Oh nevermind then. You obviously missed the point if you are still jabbering on about how SUN isn't trying to get on the desktop, I stated that they don't care about the desktop already, but they should. For some reason SUN fanatics are overly sensitive on this site and respond to every criticism in a defensive way.

Just as I asked you to backup your previous comments (which you have failed to do), you make more statements based on your opinion about the future of Solaris based on its desktop. Do you have any meaningful data to backup this statement "Solaris isn't going to be wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow because of this but their marketshare will slowly erode and they will not be able to compete with Microsoft or Novell or Redhat in many different areas because JDS is such a lame attempt at a desktop." or are you just trolling as before?

To be a troll you have to try to get people in an uproar. I didn't do that. If anyone is guilty of being a troll its you and others like you who freak out anytime anyone says anything bad about SUN or Solaris. I stated that my post was an opinion and I gave my reasoning but you were too busy getting your panties in a bunch about SUN being criticized to actually read my opinion on why the lack of a viable desktop will hurt SUN in the end. I never said it would kill them but it will hurt them.

That really takes some nerve to start something then deny you started it because you think your opinion isn't a troll! That's rich. And calling me a troll, nice attemmpt at redirection. Too bad it isn't working.

No I didn't miss the point about desktops. In light of everything that is going on with Solaris it seems the only avenue of attack that Linux zealots have is this desktop nonsense. Can you actually point to some piece of Sun literature where they are targeting anything other than a corporate desktop with JDS? You have consistently failed to produce any meaningful facts to backup anything you have said. And unfortunately, your opnion is not fact.

I didn't start this flamewar. I wasn't even trying to steer the discussion towards Solaris on the desktop. I tried to make that clear. The people who started the flamewar were people like you who try to put words in my mouth.

Yes you did, This is exactly what you said.

One thing that was mentioned that really caught my eye, even though it has nothing to do with security, is that Solaris uses a 3 year old version of GNOME! You could always use CDE but that's like using a 15 year old version of XFCE. I guess SUN doesn't plan on updating GNOME for Java Desktop until their next release of Solaris. If SUN continues to go this route they are ALWAYS going to have an older, staler graphical interface compared to competing Linux vendors. They don't have a chance on the desktop no matter which vendor is chosen for server side duties and without the desktop Solaris can never fully compete with Microsoft or Linux.

Most companies don't change UIs mid release.

RHEL desktop v4 shipped with Gnome 2.8. RHEL v5 will ship with 2.16 it was just announced March 14 2007. Gnome 2.8 was released in sept 2004. 2.6 that ships with Solaris 10 was released in March 2004. So until recently even Redhat shipped and almost 2.5 year old Gnome release!

MacOS X 10.4.x has the same UI in multiple updates.
Windows XP had the same UI multiple updates.

Each of these will get or has gotten a new UI in the "next release". This is standard industry practice. Unlike your opinion highlighted in bold.

Solaris 10 was released more than 2 years ago. So it is understandable that they shipped with a Gnome version of that vintage. Solaris Express has 2.16 and will probably ship with 2.18. So Solaris express is already on par with Redhat's latest release.

Basically the post that started this flamewar made no particular point other than saying that Sun is following industry standard practice of not upsetting customers with massive changes in an update patch.

I would think twice before installing a huge change to my system mid production. So customers like things to be static until the next release. At which point they evaluate the next release for months before deploying it.

And the conclusion drawn that Sun needs the latest bleeding edge UI to compete with Linux in the enterprise market is pure fallacy. Note the RHEL example above.

Seems like a waste of a discussion, but I'll throw my two cents into the charade.

I work for the military. We use Solaris in a few different places. For desktops and laptops, we use Windows. For mission critical devices that need user interfaces, we'll use Solaris, Red Hat, etc.

Each mission critical device is a purpose built machine, designed to execute nothing other than the application it was built for. There is a box that coordinates artillary. There is a box that coordinates unit locations on a map of the theater. There are boxes designed just to provide video feeds from a camera and a simple interface to control that camera (seen Fedora on one of those). There are hundreds of UI driven appliances across the theater built like this.

And the users never actually see the desktop. All they see is the application. Most often, the user is locked out from the desktop. Users aren't even allowed touch or see a console. That's actually the last thing we'd ever want a grunt having access to.

Point is, if a company can tame the complexities of an OS so that, for a given application, they can make it look as simple as a paper-clip or a hole-puncher, the military will pay a billion dollars for it.

Here's an interesting example: The unit-location-mapping appliance I spoke of earlier is basically a glorified GPS mapping device. One can battle track many units all over the battle field with it, down to the squad level. You can even send instant messages over it. Solaris had always ran on that box but just recently lost that contract to Red Hat. One day we just received these Red Hat HD images and we were told to image all the hard drives with the new Red Hat OS. Guess what... The user interface is exactly the same. There's one new widget there, but everything else is exactly the same. I think they're still even using fvwm, which I see on most other UI driven appliances in theater as well.

And the lesson is, yea, if your client is the US military, you're going to bend over backwards to create any appliance they want, under whatever terms they want, because they are going to pay more handsomely than anyone else in the world.

I remember playing with the FBCB2 and getting a real kick out of it running Solaris X86 and fvwm95. I flew the Shadow 200 UAV (Remote Controlled Spy Planes)and our RVT (Remote Video Terminal) ran a mostly stock version of Redhat Linux 9 with a custom Kernel and some special hardware.

Seems like a waste of a discussion, but I'll throw my two cents into the charade.

I work for the military. We use Solaris in a few different places. For desktops and laptops, we use Windows. For mission critical devices that need user interfaces, we'll use Solaris, Red Hat, etc.

Each mission critical device is a purpose built machine, designed to execute nothing other than the application it was built for. There is a box that coordinates artillary. There is a box that coordinates unit locations on a map of the theater. There are boxes designed just to provide video feeds from a camera and a simple interface to control that camera (seen Fedora on one of those). There are hundreds of UI driven appliances across the theater built like this.

And the users never actually see the desktop. All they see is the application. Most often, the user is locked out from the desktop. Users aren't even allowed touch or see a console. That's actually the last thing we'd ever want a grunt having access to.

Point is, if a company can tame the complexities of an OS so that, for a given application, they can make it look as simple as a paper-clip or a hole-puncher, the military will pay a billion dollars for it.

Here's an interesting example: The unit-location-mapping appliance I spoke of earlier is basically a glorified GPS mapping device. One can battle track many units all over the battle field with it, down to the squad level. You can even send instant messages over it. Solaris had always ran on that box but just recently lost that contract to Red Hat. One day we just received these Red Hat HD images and we were told to image all the hard drives with the new Red Hat OS. Guess what... The user interface is exactly the same. There's one new widget there, but everything else is exactly the same. I think they're still even using fvwm, which I see on most other UI driven appliances in theater as well.

And the lesson is, yea, if your client is the US military, you're going to bend over backwards to create any appliance they want, under whatever terms they want, because they are going to pay more handsomely than anyone else in the world.

Here's my two cents on very deep pockets within the military. Before I retired the Navy started to look real hard at digital imaging, and my last deployment on the USS Nimitz we fielded a system called PIES (Photographic Imagery Editing System). It was a juiced up SPARC 2 system with (this is 1993 mind you) 32 MB of RAM, a 150 MB tape drive, a hard disk of a size I can't remember along with two Microtek scanners and a Kodak digital printer, price about $250,000.00.

The overall system was slow due to the limited amount of memory and storage, scanning an 8x10 at 24-bit color took 8 minutes. But the thing could survive a hit from a RPG though (just kidding). If nothing else it was an interesting experiment.

I received this just this morning, it has facts and everything, it's got fanboy rants and reasons why you should join their club.
Just like every other serious server/desktop innovator, Sun, one of the oldest, if not the truest OSs (BSD) has decided to actually participate and really innovate.
It's about time.